Much ado about nothing in Middle East region

Europe discontented over dominant U.S. role in Mideast but no divorce

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques urges int'l community to stop Israeli practices

Israel continues escalations, lends deaf ear to Europe's peace wishes

London: Amin Sibai

Influential politicians in the ruling British Labour Party watered down this week press reports that spoke of temporary "coldness" that marked the distinguished relations binding Britain and the United States, namely the strategic alliance and coordination between former Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush.

The Labour politicians said a talk about so-called "coldness" was not accurate and did not mirror reality, noting that in Britain, just like in the United States, there are official institutions that work on the continuation of approaches to deal with allies and enemies.

They said that this approach is not altered by changing persons or governments despite the fact that policies may differ between this or that leader in the same party.

Accordingly, the strategy between the United States and Britain, whose bases were built by F.D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, has always been the key guarantor for the survival of this alliance that it would be dead wrong to bet on the collapse of such a strategy.

It was observed that the talk about "coldness" in U.S.-British relations has reached political and media circles in London from Washington itself in the same time where the streets of London and Glasgow, as well as some other British cities, were gripped on the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war by mass demonstrations demanding withdrawal of British troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some reports from Washington to London held that British diplomats in Washington have agreed, in an undeclared way, to stop using the cliché "special relations" when speaking about British ties with the United States.

The features of this trend have emerged ever since Gordon Brown took over as British Prime Minister in succession of Blair. Britain is trying at the present time to focus on building a unified front with the states of the European Union (EU) to confront some international issues and problems towards which the United States is adopting different stands.

The change has emboldened French President Nicolas Sarkozy to fill in the gaps left by the departure of Tony Blair from power.

Some information hold that the bilateral U.S.-British ties are not currently going through a crisis but contacts between the two governments are not as much intensive as they were during Blair's time on the grounds that Brown preferred to give priority to enhancing European cooperation within the EU framework.

It is necessary to admit that none of the two nations is seeking disengagement of this strategic alliance but reality makes it a must to a admit that there were opinions inside Labour calling for reconsidering the decision taken by Blair five years ago to go with the U.S. administration to Iraq based on reasons and justifications that turned out to be untrue after Iraq was invaded.

These opinions urge to have the British army's withdrawal from Iraq programmed over stages and have this withdrawal accelerated in isolation of the U.S. strategy applied there.

Labour's election status indicates that staying in Iraq, along with several other foreign and internal problems, would gnaw at the parliamentary majority and consequently a shift of power from Labour to the opposition.

Analysts who adopt these opinions say that the sooner to have the British withdrawal from Iraq programmed the better for the objectives of participation in the Iraq war – the elimination of Saddam Hussein and his Baath regime and making sure there were no weapons of mass destruction or long-range missiles in Iraq – have been attained.

Moreover, it has become relatively possible to task Iraqi forces with maintaining security and eradicating terrorism with help from the coalition forces whenever the need arises.

It is said that the British prime minister, who prefers to keep a low media profile, was in favor of these opinions inside his party.

On the other hand, there is a prominent political trend in London supporting the idea of pushing the Palestinians and Israelis to abandon force in solving their problems and to sit together at a negotiating table to reach a peaceful solution, establish an independent Palestinian state and re-unite the Gaza Strip and the West Bank based on the roadmap plan.

Proponents of this trend also want Israel to avoid entering new wars in the region, seek diplomatic solutions to bring Iran to end its nuclear activities and steer clear of any military solutions otherwise international and regional involvement in another war would be of high costs to all parties.

The use of this approach in dealing with the Middle East problems does not mean there should be backtracking on strategies to fight terrorism and terrorists who dream of controlling the legitimate institutions of power in the region and the region's wealth.

The proponents of this approach also believe that there should be no threat against the existence of Israel left, as part of the commitment of Britain and the EU, but this should not call for marginalizing rationality in the efforts to defuse crises.

British and European politicians call for contemplating the opinions and demands included into last week's Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) sessions, where the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz shed light in his speech, read on his behalf by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, the issue of Jerusalem and how it constitutes the core and crux of the Palestinian issue and that the Jerusalem problem should be included as priority in any talks or negotiations.

Based on this principle and Arab consensus, Saudi Arabia participated in the Annapolis peace conference in light of confirmations that the meeting would usher in a new era in which dealing with the peace process would be through tackling the key problems of dispute, including Jerusalem, and within a set time frame.

High hoped were pinned that the commitments expressed in Annapolis would enter into effect but so far nothing has happened except more massacres perpetrated by the Israeli government against the Palestinian people in Gaza as well as women, children, the elderly and unarmed civilians in application of mass punishment and siege policies and in violation of all international and humanitarian laws and the Geneva Conventions pertaining to dealing with civilian inhabitants under occupation.

European and American leaders have also received Islamic demands after the OIC calling on the international community to learn that Israeli practices impose on this community to provide protection for the Palestinian people.

Those leaders were also notified that Arab commitment to peace as a strategic option hinges on Israel's honoring of its pledges towards the peace process and respect for peace agreements, including the Arab peace initiative. The international community, thus, is required not only to sponsor the Middle East peace process but also to permanently seek materializing the objectives of this process. It just makes sense that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has heard these demands and opinion during his recent tour of the Middle East region.

In the European atmosphere there are signs and moves to have the Annapolis pledges fulfilled.

The German government, during the visit of German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Israel this week, has notified several Arab nations that it was planning to convene a large international conference in Berlin this summer to discuss means to set up security, judicial and administrative systems for a possible Palestinian state.

Merkel said that invitations for this conference would be sent to the United States, EU countries, Russia, the United Nations (UN), Arab countries, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and Israel.

France has already started its contacts to hold an international conference in Paris to evaluate the outcome of the Annapolis conference with the beginning of France's presidency of the EU in early July.

The French president had affirmed for the leaders in Israel that halting settlements and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state would serve as basis for realizing security for Israel, stressing, however, his permanent commitment to Israel's security and that "France would always be by Israel's side when its existence is under menace."

The EU has recently reiterated support for the Annapolis conference and efforts to follow up the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that have to "result in the birth of two Palestinian and Israeli states".

The U.S. administration, ahead of Cheney's arrival in the region, walked in Europe's footsteps in a face-saving campaign when Rice notified some countries in the region, including Israel, that she has criticized Israel for recently approving plans to build hundreds of new houses in Jerusalem and the West Bank on the grounds that these plans do not serve peace.

She said the U.S. administration views that expansion of settlement activities does not go along with Israel's commitments to the roadmap plan.

It seemed clear that the U.S. administration wanted to make some progress on the Palestinian-Israeli track ahead of a visit President Bush was planning to pay for Israel in May. Bush hopes that Israel would start evacuating random settlements although he feels so frustrated due to Israel's ignoring of these calls and continuing the construction of more settlements.

Bush, in a year of U.S. elections and his party's needs for Jewish votes, does not want his administration to force a pill on Israel to swallow.

In fact, European circles are not relying much on Cheney's Mideast tour. The knew that the man had no radical solutions to key problems and that the objective of the visit of Cheney, a prominent hawk in the U.S. administration, was to prolong the U.S. military presence in Iraq, tighten the noose around Iran, convince the region's countries to up their oil production to lower its prices and have overall peace with Israel, call for collective stand against Iran's growing power, drum up support for Israel and urge collective work in dismantling military infrastructure of opposition groups in the Palestinian territories and Arab countries.

Apparently, the hopes of all countries urging peaceful solutions to the Middle East problems inhabit an ivory tower. Israeli leaders do not want to give any key concessions for the Palestinians and Arabs and even speak of a near fall of U.S. promises to reach a new agreement with the Palestinians to build their independent state before the end of Bush's term in office unless the PNA starts destroying the Palestinian organizations' influence and weapons and retrieve Gaza from the grip of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas).

Based on the Lebanese magazine al-Afkar.